Talk:Angels in Christianity

You must sign your posts!

I just reviewed the previous sections on this Talk page and I must say, I have never seen a Talk page with so many unsigned sections. This is not your sandbox. If you are going to leave a comment on this Talk page or any Talk page you must sign your comments. You do so by adding four tildes. If you don't know how to do that, just click on the section below where it says "Sign your posts on talk pages" and then it has four tildes. Clicking on that will add your signature for you! Now that you have been advised on how to do it, I am sure you will sign your comments from now on. You can do it! God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd: it is not that nobody signed, it is that the bot only archives messages which are signed. Hence, unless someone adds the Template:Unsigned or archives manually, those unsigned messages are bound to stay. Veverve (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I see your point. However, even if signed messages have been archived, leaving the impression that an unusual number of messages were unsigned, my point remains. If you post a message, it should be signed with four tildes. I see you are always thorough in signing yours. Well done! MarydaleEd (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Christian angelology → Angels in Christianity – The articles Angels in Judaism and Angels in Islam have clearly established a pattern for pages like this, and it only makes sense that this article should conform with the existing status quo. Furthermore, "Angelology" is either theological jargon *or* too fantastical for encyclopedic tone. This article originally was titled "Christian angelic hierarchy" and was solely about Pseudo-Dionysian Angelology (popular in Medieval European Catholicism) and it does need restructuring in other ways, (for this I agree with user Yeshua/StagerJ, see his opinion in the Talk page,) but if nothing else the name should be clarified and made to match the established pattern of article names. I can't imagine this move would be too controversial, but considering that it's already been the subject of move discussions, I thought I'd request comment if there is any. Garnet Moss (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NATURALNESS It's a much more natural title as well as being more consistent with similar article titles . Rreagan007 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, also per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NATURALNESS. Veverve (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, but note that "angelology" and its counterpart, "demonology", are theological terms, rather than fantastic ones (although their transparency makes them susceptible to fantastic use). However, I also note that these terms are not, I think, used outside of Christianity. Neither angels nor demons are a subject of special study in Judaism, although I'm sure medieval scholars discussed them; and while there might be some Islamic scholarship on the subject, it almost certainly doesn't use Greek terms, so "Christian angelology" seems redundant. Of course the term "angel" predates Christianity and occasionally occurs outside of western theology, but again, I don't believe there is a distinct study under the name of "angelology" in any other religious or mythological context. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  I did state that angelology is theological jargon, but it is also used in fantastical settings. That's all I meant. It is of course primarily a Christian theology term, but its been appropriated for other usages too. And "angelology" could certainly be said to be a sub-topic of Christian theology, (St. Thomas Aquinas is often called "The Angelic Doctor" precisely for his writings on angelology,) but it's too jargony of a title to be used here. Garnet Moss (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and topic consistency. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Snow angels? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: It is that time of year... ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support and hopefully this more transparent title leads to a better article. I don't feel qualified to write about "angelology" but I can write about angels. Red Slash 23:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Libcub (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wooooah, what the heck on this trim down

This page used to have a ton of cited information on the history of occult texts and various theological works that built up this topic, and now it's like a hatchet was taken to it, making it look like classifications like "Dominions" have as much basis in the history of Christian culture as any given obscure Marvel character. There's no discussion of which choirs are mentioned in which works. Also, there's no acknowledgement that obviously most of this approach to classifying angels was inspired by how the Jewish faith handled it.

The heck? This article was made actively worse.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@KrytenKoro: Could you provide a link to a version of the article with the sourced information you believe should be included. In January, there were significant deletions that removed mostly unsourced content. In September last year, there were significant deletions that removed some sourced content from the Catholic Encyclopedia (which has since been established as a generally reliable source). Which of these deletions do you mean? ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it looks like the page as I knew it was fully deleted before being turned into a redirect to this one. From memory, I think it was in large part a combination of the current Jewish angel article and this one, with some additional focus on what verses are claimed as attestations, and I believe some discussion of each class of angel in established mythology and folklore (like Dante's divine comedy, etc.).

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)r.

@KrytenKoro: I just tried looking for this deleted article you're talking about. I saw a 2016 move and a couple more recent moves, but nothing really matched what you're talking about. Do you have a timeframe that this earlier version may have existed during? ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mythologicalcreature8817 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mythologicalcreature8817 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Broken image

What is the reason for it? I don't get it.
Beyaz Deriili (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviving the hierarchy discussion

This seems to have fallen off the talk page, and an earlier attempt to revise was controversial, but I really think this page needs to be reworked. There's just no way that the article needs nine main headings for the Pseudo-Dionysian hierarchy, a non-canonical schema not even remotely close to the heart of Nicene Christianity. Originally this page was all about the P-D hierarchy, which explains how it became so prevalent, but now that it's been renamed to the much broader "Angels in Christianity" this needs to be revisited.

Here is my proposed heading structure, hopefully a fair compromise with those who want to prioritize the hierarchy:

• 1. General Views
  • 1.1. Antiquity
  • 1.2. Pseudo-Dionysian Hierarchy
  • 1.3. Roman Catholic Church
  • 1.4 Guardian Angels
• 2. Angels in the Bible
• 3. Angelic Ranks According to the Pseudo-Dionysian Hierarchy
  • 3.1 Seraphim
  • 3.2 Cherubim
  • 3.3 Thrones
  • 3.4 Dominions or Lordships
  • 3.5 Virtues
  • 3.6 Powers or Authorities
  • 3.7 Principalities or Rulers
  • 3.8 Archangels
  • 3.9 Angels
• 4. See Also
• 5. References
• 6. Bibliography
• 7. Further Reading

Would be open to edits, but I really want to see these ranks tucked into subheadings. Garnet Moss (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Why should we have a long section+sub-sections on 'Angelic Ranks According to the Pseudo-Dionysian Hierarchy' when the De Coelesti Hierarchia article exists? Veverve (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine, I’m certainly not married to the idea. But in previous discussions/edits there was strong pushback against demoting/removing the P-D hierarchy, so I gave up. My current proposal is a compromise. Garnet Moss (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)